<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (4) TMI 554 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78654</link>
    <description>A criminal complaint founded on the earlier rejection of customs settlement applications could not be sustained once that rejection had been set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. Because the settlement proceedings were still pending, the prosecution had no surviving basis and was premature; the complaint and process were therefore liable to be quashed. Liberty was reserved to file a fresh complaint if the Settlement Commission later passed an adverse order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:47:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 554 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78654</link>
      <description>A criminal complaint founded on the earlier rejection of customs settlement applications could not be sustained once that rejection had been set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. Because the settlement proceedings were still pending, the prosecution had no surviving basis and was premature; the complaint and process were therefore liable to be quashed. Liberty was reserved to file a fresh complaint if the Settlement Commission later passed an adverse order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>